jackie hayes

Well...how 'bout them Bulls?

One more shot, should have good field position -- or am I on a big delay?

I was sad I couldn't watch the game. Now, not so sad. Sloppy, ugly, ugh. Then again, all the games are sloppy this week.

So...we take away 2 good obp players, and replace them w/ 2 players w/ the same obp but less power? That's a strategy? Carlos and PK are 22 and 31 in the AL in obp, respectively -- do you think we'll be able to trade for/sign 2 guys better than that? EDIT: Or even 1 -- and if so, how much better? C'mon, bunting ability is not that valuable.

Is there any basis in fact for all of this Lee or Konerko speculation? Have there been any hints, inside info, unattributed quotes? If you want to remake the team, you'll have rf and ss to work with, at least. And maybe catcher (Ben Davis, Sandy Alomar are no locks), 3b (Crede has had an awful year), 2b (noone knows how the Sox feel about Willie). That's 5 positions that you could work with. That's an opportunity for a pretty big makeover. To add another position to that (in addition, losing your 3rd or 4th best hitter) is superfluous. If they want to win, they need good hitters -- keep them both. If they want to go young and rebuild (foolish IMO with all the investments in the pitching staff) -- trade them both.

Eek... IF Everett loses weight, and IF he is healthy... The real question is, do we think he'll do that/be that? I wouldn't chance it, if it could be avoided.

I agree completely. The 2 advantages you mention of keeping players in the minors are really two sides of the same coin. It is clear now that Garland was probably brought up too soon to contribute, and because of that he'll be fa/arbitration eligible at an unfortunate time, before we can really see the best pitcher he can become. Put differently, if a guy's ready when young, there's no reason to keep him in the minors just b/c of arbitration -- Zack Greinke, Miguel Cabrera, Mark Prior. But it's rare -- those are some awfully special players. Mostly, I just don't want to see the Sox get impatient with Anderson, Sweeney, etc. And Fields more than anyone, since he didn't play baseball full-time until recently. Some have suggested that he'll be ready in 2 years -- he may be, but it's nothing the Sox should rely on.

I don't totally disagree w/ your point, but I also don't think that's quite the right way to characterize the Twins. They tend to develop their players longer in the minor leagues. (I remember reading/hearing that Twins players take an above-average number of minor league at-bats. I don't have the stats myself, though.) Then they're brought up and expected to perform. Of the players you mention, in terms of stats, Koskie was pretty much what he is now from the word go. Radke and Milton had a first year burp -- a burp we would have loved in the 5th spot this year -- but then were more-or-less the pitchers we've seen since. Hunter is the only one that had some difficulties -- about a .690 ops in his first year, .730 in his second. Overall, there wasn't much patience needed with those players once they hit the ML. Now, I don't think there's a very clear message out of this. One could say the Sox are too quick to bring up young players, and that might be true. But just thinking about our call-ups (excluding the many 5th starters this year, which was sheer desperation), I'm not convinced that they were too green. One could just as well blame our player drafting and recruiting (in Latin America), or our player development. I'm not sure what's wrong, but I just don't see much evidence that developing guys at the ML level is a good strategy.

Gibbs has emphasized how much he's going to run Portis (something like, I'm going to run him so much his tongue will be hanging out), so I think you keep him, as good as Green is. But he's riskier than Green.

I really like Snow, even at this point in his career. He's the type of hitter we need, and inexpensive. But he's been used lately as a platoon player, and the Sox already hit rhp pretty well. He wouldn't be very useful unless we trade Konerko.

I was wondering about this -- what are the details of waivers when a player has been in the ML for parts of 3 seasons, between that 3rd season and the next? Can we send Joe down to AAA freely, then call him up, and only run into a problem if we want to send him down again? I thought one of the issues affecting the Ginter trade was that Ginter was out of options, so he'd have to pass through waivers -- and that was in st. So presumably Joe wouldn't be w/ the team in st if he started in Charlotte. Another thread loses its way...

Agreed, strongly. Lemon was a puzzling choice. If he can't get out college hitters w/ a 100 mph fastball, why would you think he'd suddenly put it together in the pros? But, and I know I'm still pretty new here, isn't this getting a bit off-topic?

I quoted a very specific part of your post, "...if Willie and Uribe can consistently play better than Borchard..." I implied that there's not much doubt...that they "can consistently play better than Borchard." You replied that there is a lot of doubt. I replied that I don't see it, but okay. That's what the hell I'm arguing about. I've looked it over, and it makes perfect sense. The question is, what the hell did you think I was arguing about?

Your response shows that Uribe and Harris are inconsistent, but that wasn't the point -- it was about their performance compared to Borchard's. I haven't seen one scintilla of evidence that Borchard can play as well as Uribe or Harris for any length of time longer than a single at-bat. And I didn't say that they should make them starters -- sure, let them compete, I just don't have (personally) much doubt about who would win if they were competing with Borchard.

For each of the past 3 years, he's played roughly 10 games fewer than the previous year -- you should include this year, because he will at most play 126 games, if he starts playing today -- not likely. He'll probably end the season w/ I never said I prefer Crede to Koskie, because I don't. But saying he'll improve on Crede's performance is pretty faint praise. I think the Sox should move on at 3b. My only point is that the Sox want to cut down on strikeouts. If you make yourself worse in this regard, at this position (3b), it makes it that much more difficult to improve your team's overall strikeout rate -- even though the player is individually a big upgrade. Just something to consider when putting together the team as a whole -- it affects your strategy at other positions.

If? How much doubt is left on that count?

Besides being a major health risk, Koskie won't help the Sox cut down on strikeouts. In fact, his k rate is worse than Crede's. He draws more walks, but not by much. I'm not saying he's a bad player, only that signing him will do little to correct the slugging-imbalance on the Sox.

On whitesox.com, there's an article titled "A new shortstop in '05?" I don't see the Sox putting that article up if they are seriously considering bringing Jose back. Maybe I'm wrong on this, but I've never seen a team website that didn't toe the official team line pretty carefully.

He has a stronger arm and gets to more balls in his area than Vizquel. It's true that his hands aren't as good, but watching how bad Kaz Matsui has been for the Mets, I've appreciated more and more the import of the zone stat.

Agreed! Jose is not ideal, but his power is still an asset. His defense is better than Vizquel's. He'd still be a good player in a platoon -- a large part of his slide has been due to the fact that, each of the last few years, his role against lhp has increased. Jose is pure platoon, and used that way, is still valuable. Vizquel is more consistent against both rhp and lhp, but his obp will most likely be .340 or lower (.340 is his career obp, and whatever your position on age, he can't still be improving at 38), and he has very little power (this year is an aberration in that respect too). Even if that seems like a worthwhile switch (and I find that questionable), Vizquel is a health risk. Even moreso if Jose Mesa finds a place in the AL. Isn't Vizquel the one who had that quip about learning golf in st? Something like, 'I address my golf clubs each morning like a general addressing his troops. I tell them, boys, we're going out on a very important mission this morning. And some of you won't be coming back.' I love that bit, but I haven't been able to google it up.

It should stay positive for the most part, I don't think "guy who we thank heavens is gone" is a good category. B/c that gets done over enough in the threads. Also, we're all happy that some of the players lurk/post. Why risk that by "officially" bashing their friends? That said, "most important game" should allow negative events. IMO, that easily goes to the Hunter-Burke debacle this season.

I fail to see why anyone would want to get rid of Konerko. Sure, he strikes out a lot, but less frequently than some (including Rowand, Harris, Davis, Borchard). Every team is going to have some weaknesses in that area, somewhere in their lineup. Compared to what he brings -- in obp, slg, avg, hrs -- that one weakness isn't worth that much. And hey, as for speed, not many players on the Sox have as good a steals/attempts ratio! Case closed! A number of posters have said that they'd rather trade Carlos. Again, why? His obp is good, and his k rate isn't bad, either. This season has been frustrating, but that doesn't mean that the team will improve by attrition. And why would we want Glaus at all? This guy is almost Jose Hernandez-esque w/ the strike outs. Koskie isn't much better, Beltre may be a bit better, but not much, and he'll be very pricey. Isn't Bill Mueller the type we're looking for, low-k + good obp? Not sure if the Red Sox are picking up the option or not. They have Youkilis, Bellhorn, and they may resign Reese/Cabrera, so he may be available. It seems like posters are looking for a ss who hits like a ss is supposed to, a 3b who hits like a 3b is supposed to, etc. Let's just get the pieces for the lineup, whatever position they play. But let's start with our worst-producing positions, not 1b and lf. EDIT: When I said "isn't much better", I meant isn't much better than what we have (Crede), in terms of strike outs. They're both much better than Glaus, of course. Sorry for the confusion.

Right, I agree with what you're saying here. I was never saying that obp is not important, only that getting rid of some of the guys you mention (especially PK and Lee) wouldn't lead to a big improvement in that area, nor necessarily in the k-prevention area, which is also important in the move-overs, 20% of getting RISP. (One small point -- our doubles hitting is somewhat low this year. Not sure why.) I'm willing to sacrifice some slg for obp (ie, take a lesser ops player). But it would be hard to find someone (realistic) at ss who wouldn't be a drop off the cliff from Valentin's slg. My basic point was just that the season-totals used in the chart are probably misleading for the Sox. The team in the first half (more or less) was well constructed, and wouldn't look so odd. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but I don't think what you're saying contradicts this...right?

Exactly -- why would you want Borchard to get better pitches to hit? I'd prefer to see if he can learn how to handle anything a pitcher throws at him. The less protection, the better.

I've been thinking about your post for a long time now, and I just don't know if the answer is as clear as you say. Our obp is about average, so how do we know getting an obp-type player helps? And how good does the obp have to be? Anyway, Lee and Konerko have been pretty good this year in terms of obp -- even better than Magglio. And they've each had a better k/ab rate than Rowand, who's obviously staying. Does anyone know what this would look like before vs after the big 2 went down? My guess -- and that's all it is -- is that the anomaly is mostly explained by the injuries. After Frank and Magglio went down, there were a lot fewer opportunities -- Frank walks so much, Magglio seems to be a natural "productive out" guy -- so the average is weighted more heavily towards the early part of the season, when our lineup had fewer holes and we were hitting better anyway. I doubt we'd look so clutch post-injuries. This team is somewhat lopsided at full strength (towards power) -- but those injuries really tipped the scales. I'd like to adjust it a little bit, esp by switching Crede, who's been our weakest hitter, and perhaps in the choice of Magglio's replacement. But it would be hard for any team without their two best hitters. For all the Marlins small-ball stylings, they would have been lost without Lowell and Cabrera, or Lowell and Pudge. And Frank and Magglio are just as good, and just as important to the Sox. Anyway, that's my read on these stats, FWIW.